דאגב חורפיה בלע אבל קישות גריר לבי פסקיה ואכיל
as due to its sharpness it absorbs the fat on the knife. But if one cut a cucumber with the same knife, it does not absorb the fat to the same extent. One may therefore simply scrape the place of the cut to remove any fat residue, and then one may eat the cucumber with kutaḥ.
קילחי דליפתא שרי דסילקא אסירי ואי פתך בהו דליפתא שפיר דמי
Likewise, turnip stalks cut with such a knife are permitted for consumption with kutaḥ. But chard cut with such a knife is prohibited for consumption with kutaḥ, as it absorbs flavor from the knife. And if one alternated between cutting chard and turnip stalks it is permitted, as the turnip stalks nullify the taste of the meat in the knife.
§ Rav Dimi inquired of Rav Naḥman: What is the halakha with regard to placing a jug of salt, used to salt meat, alongside a jug of kamka, i. e., kutaḥ, a milk dish? Need one be concerned lest some of the kutaḥ fall on the salt without his knowledge and ultimately contaminate his meat? Rav Naḥman said to him: It is prohibited to place the two jugs next to each other. Rav Dimi further inquired: What is the halakha with regard to a similar case involving a jug of vinegar used to season meat? Need one be concerned lest the kutaḥ fall into the vinegar? Rav Naḥman said to him: It is permitted to place these two jugs next to each other.
ומאי שנא לכי תיכול עלה כורא דמלחא מאי טעמא האי איתיה איסורא בעיניה והאי ליתיה איסורא בעיניה
Rav Dimi asked: And what is different about the vinegar? Rav Naḥman responded: When you have thought about it long enough to eat a kor of salt, you will know the reason. The Gemara clarifies: What is the reason then? In this case of the salt, the prohibited substance is substantive, as the traces of kutaḥ are discernible and not nullified by the salt. But in that case of the vinegar, the prohibited substance is not substantive, since the kutaḥ melts away in the vinegar and will no longer impart flavor.
ההוא בר גוזלא דנפל לכדא דכמכא שרייה רב חיננא בריה דרבא מפשרוניא אמר רבא מאן חכים למישרי כי האי גוונא אי לאו רב חיננא בריה דרבא מפשרוניא קסבר כי אמר שמואל מליח הרי הוא כרותח הני מילי היכא דאינו נאכל מחמת מלחו אבל האי כותחא הרי נאכל מחמת מלחו
The Gemara relates: There was a certain young bird that fell into a jug of kamka, i. e., kutaḥ. Rav Ḥinnana, son of Rava of the city of Pashronya, permitted the bird. Rava said about this: Who is wise enough to discern reasons to permit the food in difficult cases like this, if not Rav Ḥinnana, son of Rava of Pashronya? He maintains that when Shmuel said that a salted food imparts flavor like a boiling food, that statement applies only to a food so salty that it is not eaten due to its salt, but this kutaḥ can still be eaten due to, i. e., despite, its salt. Therefore, it is as if both foods are cold and unsalted, and they do not impart flavor to one another, provided one rinses the area of contact.
והני מילי חי אבל צלי בעי קליפה ואי אית ביה פילי כוליה אסור ואי מתבל בתבלין כוליה אסור
The Gemara adds: And this statement applies only if the bird is raw, but if it is roasted, it requires peeling to remove the outer layer, since roasting softens the meat and causes it to absorb more flavor. And if it has cracks [pilei], it is entirely forbidden, because the milk is absorbed into the cracks. And if it has been flavored with spices it is likewise entirely forbidden, because the spices soften the meat and render it absorbent.
Rav Naḥman said that Shmuel says: It is prohibited to eat a loaf of bread upon which one cut unsalted roasted meat, since the blood expelled from the roasted meat is absorbed in the loaf. The Gemara adds: And this statement applies only if the meat is ruddy from the blood it contains. And furthermore, this statement applies only if so much blood was absorbed in the loaf that it passed through from one side of the loaf to the other and was visible from both sides. And furthermore, this statement applies only if the liquid emitted by the roasted meat is viscous. But if it is runny, we have no problem with it, i. e., the loaf is permitted.
The Gemara relates: Shmuel would throw to his dog such a loaf of bread that he held was prohibited. Rav Huna would not eat the loaf himself but would rather give it to his attendant. The Gemara objects: Whichever way you look at it, Rav Huna’s behavior is problematic: If the loaf is permitted, it is permitted for everyone, including Rav Huna himself. And if it is prohibited, then it is prohibited for everyone, and he should not give it to his attendant. The Gemara explains: In fact, the loaf is permitted for consumption, and Rav Huna is different, as he is of delicate constitution and did not want to eat the loaf himself. The Gemara further relates: Rava would eat a loaf of this type, and he would call the red liquid meat wine.
Rav Naḥman says that Shmuel says: One may not place a vessel under roasting meat to catch the drippings of fat until all the ruddiness of the meat’s appearance has dissipated. Beforehand, though, one must be concerned that blood will fall with the drippings into the vessel, rendering the mixture and the vessel prohibited. The Gemara asks: How do we know when all the meat’s redness has disappeared? Mar Zutra said in the name of Rav Pappa: As soon as its smoke rises, one can be sure that all the blood has been expelled from the meat.
Rav Ashi objects to this: But perhaps the underside of the meat, which is closest to the coals, has been fully roasted, but its upper part is still not roasted and still expels blood at this stage. Rather, Rav Ashi said: One who wishes to collect the drippings has no remedy except to place two lumps of salt in it, i. e., one in the receptacle under the meat and one on top, in the meat itself.